AIBU in thinking employers should be able to refuse to employ smokers?

[TiggyD]

1. You should judge aplicants on their decisions. Yes. They chose to smoke which means they're likely to die earlier, smell, be ill etc. They have made a really bad decision: To smoke.

1. If they say they regret their decision but can't give up they're addicts. I would tend to avoid giving known drug addicts or alcoholics a job, and the same goes for tobacco addicts.

I'm not equating smoking with having children. After all, smoking tends to make you thinner. And it's important the human race doesn't die out.
I'm talking about judging people by their choices. I'm a long way from being an employer, I was just wondering why you can't.

I have lost several loved ones to smoking related illnesses.

I absolutely hate seeing people puffing away, its awful.

I have never smoked because I don't want to increase the risk of dying a painful death, and I cant afford £7 a day or whatever it costs these days.
I don't ever mention this to people who I know smoke... Thankfully only one out of all my friends smokes - i wish she didn't but wont mention it as she would get the 'ump!

I do think YABU in the way you have worded the statement. It sounds so draconian, judgmental and rather faulty logic to bias an employment decision on a personal (legal) choice.

Ok I can understand not wanting to employ a nanny/au pair/childminder who smokes, or at least one who would promise (and stick to it) not to smoke in front of your DCs. Also a stop smoking advisor - I'm doing the NHS stop smoking program and it is helping me hugely but I would be quite if I knew any of the counsellors smoked. Possibly also people doing heavy fundraising for the Heart Association or Cancer Research, but only because of the apparent hypocrisy and they wouldn't be terribly effective at their jobs if the donors knew they were smokers.... But other than that, no not really.

Since when has smoking become a choice and not an addiction?

So you can Speedos. Ah!

I'm a long way from being an employer

Thank fuck for that.

YABU and a goady fuck to boot.

I agree to some extent that employers should be able to dictate what their employees do on their property / their time. So I would tend to agree that it should be ok to ban smoking on work premises or during work hours. Although if you get an hour for lunch and choose to spend it in a pub garden 10mins walk away if you want a cig with your sandwich / J2O I don't see why you shouldn't. But then who ever gets an hour for lunch :)

Not ok not to employ smokers. Where do you draw the line?

There must have been a first time Worra. A time before you were addicted when somebody asked you "Do you want a puff on me pipe me lad?", and you made a choice and said "yes".

Where has worra said she smokes?

That's correct, smokers have no rights in employment law.

I work in a fairly large department. In the last ten years three of my colleagues have taken long term sick leave due to having strokes. One colleague went on long term sick due to having a heart attack and another due to breast cancer. Not one of them smoked or was overweight and we don't work in a stressful environment. All were apparently healthy before they were taken ill. And they were all aged 40 - 55.

By your reckoning OP employers should not take on anyone over the age of 40 who appears to be healthy. Oh and I'm a smoker btw. I get no more breaks than anyone else and being a manager have to set an example so tend to take less than junior grades. And if you worked for me and discriminated when recruiting new staff according to your OP I would be less than impressed! I want the best staff I can get to do the day job. I don't give a flying fuck if they smoke 60 a day out of hours!

It was a hyperpathetic 'You'.

Non smoker here and yabvu

I do think employers should be able to ban fag breaks though

What is it with this type of person? Always got to be thin-lipped and disapproving about something? Have you got nothing in YOUR life to occupy yourself ffs?

'hyperpathetic' was it? Right. As long as we know.

MaryBateman "By your reckoning OP employers should not take on anyone over the age of 40 who appears to be healthy" Straw man argument. I did not say don't employ anyone over 40 who is healthy.

"Have you got nothing in YOUR life to occupy yourself ffs?" I could take up playing the bagpipes?

You do that then. It'd be more use than spilling this kind of shite.

Alright then, don't employ smokers but then how do you enforce it with in demand roles? Take my neighbour, he's always puffing away on cigars and various smoking things (nothing illegal) he is also a cardiologist. He helps save lives every day, probably quite a few smoking people's lives too. should he get the sack? Or should he carry on helping people whilst understanding the illogicalness and frailty of being human. And where do you draw the line? How many and when would you have to smoke to qualify as an unemployable deviant? Would it apply to only some or all professions? It's unworkable. YABU.

some ones bored .

Oh wondrous thread, that has given us the 'hyperpathetic you'.

What a well thought out OP.

Not.

Thank you Salmotrutta.

WAIT A MINUTE! YOU SAID "NOT" AT THE END! YOU DIDN'T MEAN IT!